Health care state of play: forgoing the conference committee

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 17:21


The House and Senate will forgo a formal conference committee, and merge the health care bills through informal negotiations:  

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are "almost certain" to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate--that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.

Importantly, the lack of a formal conference committee means that Republicans can be left out of the process entirely.  If there was a conference committee, then Republicans would have to be included in the negotiations.  So, this is certainly a sign that the Democratic congressional leadership has finally concluded that Republicans are bad-faith actors on health care.  Hopefully, this knowledge will extend to other areas of legislation, too.

At Congress Matters, David Waldman has more on the rationale, and inevitability, of forgoing a formal conference committee process on health care.

On the negative side, the lack of a formal conference committee is leaving the Progressive Caucus feels left out, too:

"I am disappointed that there will be no formal conference process by which various constituencies can impact the discussion. I have not been approached about my concerns with the Senate bill, and I will be raising those at the Democratic Caucus meeting on Thursday. I and other progressives saw a conference as a means to improve the bill and have a real debate, and now with this behind-the-scenes approach, we're concerned even more."

If anything, this is a sign that Progressives feel less powerful when negotiations become less transparent.  That makes sense experientially when it comes to public whip count efforts on Social Security (ala Talking Points Memo back in 2005) and the public option.  It also makes sense deductively.  The further the negotiations take place from the public, the more relatively accountable the negotiators will be to powerful, behind the scenes interests such as the powerful health care lobby.

In short, there are pluses and minuses to forgoing a formal conference committee, but there won't be one whether we like it or not.

Chris Bowers :: Health care state of play: forgoing the conference committee

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Health care lobby? (4.00 / 3)
The bill is a product of the insurance lobby, not the health care lobby.  Hospitals and doctors are, in many cases, huge losers with this bill.

Pluses in Foregoing Conference Committee? (4.00 / 2)
Because Republicans can be left out? They were never in, and please, please don't act like Democrats just recently noticed that Republicans are obstructionists. How slow-witted do you think they are? Do they need drool cloths?
The fact is, the Democrats have a role to play and the Republicans have a role to play in this debacle, and they're playing it according to script.
In 2010, Obama hopes to get his fondest wish: a Republican Congress to work with. Then he can lament about how he'd love to get Pregressive legislation through but "those darn Republicans just won't let him."
It's all going according to the script written by the insurance corporations and for the benefit of the oligarchs.

In conference (4.00 / 2)
the majority is guaranteed more conferees and in effect, the minority party gets left out anyway when the majority conferees regularly go off and meet by themselves.

In the conference committee itself, the Republicans aren't a problem.  They'll screech on the floor about how they were left out but that's about it.  It's the various motions required to create the committee, etc. where the Republicans as a whole have the opportunity to obstruct.


[ Parent ]
Good post (0.00 / 0)
I do wonder why you felt the need to add this at the end though:
In short, there are pluses and minuses to forgoing a formal conference committee, but there won't be one whether we like it or not.

What was the point in that?  Am I misunderstanding something?


Bill threatens the middle class (0.00 / 0)
The healthcare bill expected to emerge from conference not only doesn't contain a public option, but inadequately regulates insurance cos. denial of service abuses, and has next to no enforceable cost controls.  It's not even the bill the Congressional Dems wanted.

A similar plan all but bankrupted the Mass. gov't even before the current economic crisis. Its mandates and inability to trust-bust have led to skyrocketing premiums.  The plans citizens have able to afford often have out-of-pocket expenses making them too expensive to use.   Bankruptcies caused by medical bills still occur regularly.

The U.S. is already on the razor's edge of triggering hyperinflation due to the money the Fed has to print to cover the bonds issued to finance the nat'l debt.  The subsidies on out-of-control insurance premiums needed to fulfill the obligations of the "healthcare bill" may well be the final straw.  The middle class will be as devasted economically as the Argentinian middle class was in 1990s when their currency failed.


let's move on (0.00 / 0)
This is yet another classic example of how "democracy" is played like a fiddle between the very rich on Wall Street and the very powerful in Congress. It is crony capitalism perfected almost to an art form.

How many folks on main street have anything beyond the vaguest idea of how this all unfolds behind closed doors?

And how are Progressives going to get that information to them? Again, I say this: If by next Spring and Summer, we don't have throngs of protesters marching in Washington demanding an end to the Bilderberger agenda, what will we really have accomplished?

Somehow we have to get beyond...far beyond...just analyzing these things.


Start a Third Party (4.00 / 1)
Progressives aren't going to get any message to anyone until they coalesce and refuse to back both conservative parties.  How do you get media attention?  Be the 5% of the vote the Democrats need but can't get.  

[ Parent ]
I'm always amazed how Chris can (4.00 / 2)
Take an absolutely disgusting display of disregard for the public by the Democratic Party and somehow come up with a "well that's not so bad" premise for his pro-DP establishment spin.  The leaders are much less concerned about the GOP than they are of defection within the Democratic Party.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


No one could have predicted ... (0.00 / 0)
"On the negative side, the lack of a formal conference committee is leaving the Progressive Caucus feels left out, too"

For "feels" read "fools."


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox